Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1341	control, N = 671	treatment, N = 671	p-value2
age	132	50.75 ± 12.55 (25 - 74)	51.09 ± 12.48 (25 - 74)	50.42 ± 12.70 (28 - 73)	0.760
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	134				>0.999
f		102 (76%)	51 (76%)	51 (76%)
m		32 (24%)	16 (24%)	16 (24%)
occupation	134				0.690
day_training		2 (1.5%)	2 (3.0%)	0 (0%)
full_time		16 (12%)	8 (12%)	8 (12%)
homemaker		12 (9.0%)	5 (7.5%)	7 (10%)
other		2 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	2 (3.0%)
part_time		24 (18%)	11 (16%)	13 (19%)
retired		36 (27%)	18 (27%)	18 (27%)
self_employ		6 (4.5%)	3 (4.5%)	3 (4.5%)
student		2 (1.5%)	0 (0%)	2 (3.0%)
t_and_e		2 (1.5%)	1 (1.5%)	1 (1.5%)
unemploy		32 (24%)	19 (28%)	13 (19%)
marital	134				0.756
cohabitation		1 (0.7%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.5%)
divore		13 (9.7%)	9 (13%)	4 (6.0%)
in_relationship		4 (3.0%)	2 (3.0%)	2 (3.0%)
married		38 (28%)	19 (28%)	19 (28%)
none		68 (51%)	32 (48%)	36 (54%)
seperation		3 (2.2%)	2 (3.0%)	1 (1.5%)
widow		7 (5.2%)	3 (4.5%)	4 (6.0%)
edu	134				0.351
bachelor		34 (25%)	13 (19%)	21 (31%)
diploma		25 (19%)	16 (24%)	9 (13%)
hd_ad		3 (2.2%)	2 (3.0%)	1 (1.5%)
postgraduate		12 (9.0%)	5 (7.5%)	7 (10%)
primary		8 (6.0%)	2 (3.0%)	6 (9.0%)
secondary_1_3		16 (12%)	9 (13%)	7 (10%)
secondary_4_5		31 (23%)	18 (27%)	13 (19%)
secondary_6_7		5 (3.7%)	2 (3.0%)	3 (4.5%)
fam_income	134				0.960
10001_12000		6 (4.5%)	2 (3.0%)	4 (6.0%)
12001_14000		7 (5.2%)	3 (4.5%)	4 (6.0%)
14001_16000		6 (4.5%)	2 (3.0%)	4 (6.0%)
16001_18000		3 (2.2%)	1 (1.5%)	2 (3.0%)
18001_20000		5 (3.7%)	3 (4.5%)	2 (3.0%)
20001_above		26 (19%)	15 (22%)	11 (16%)
2001_4000		19 (14%)	11 (16%)	8 (12%)
4001_6000		14 (10%)	6 (9.0%)	8 (12%)
6001_8000		11 (8.2%)	6 (9.0%)	5 (7.5%)
8001_10000		10 (7.5%)	4 (6.0%)	6 (9.0%)
below_2000		27 (20%)	14 (21%)	13 (19%)
medication	134	118 (88%)	59 (88%)	59 (88%)	>0.999
onset_duration	131	15.31 ± 10.27 (0 - 56)	16.10 ± 11.08 (0 - 56)	14.49 ± 9.36 (0 - 35)	0.372
Unknown		3	0	3
onset_age	129	35.67 ± 14.14 (10 - 65)	34.80 ± 12.79 (10 - 61)	36.54 ± 15.44 (14 - 65)	0.487
Unknown		5	2	3
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1341	control, N = 671	treatment, N = 671	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	134	3.22 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)	3.28 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	3.15 ± 1.13 (1 - 5)	0.509
recovery_stage_b	134	17.99 ± 2.81 (8 - 24)	17.88 ± 2.99 (8 - 24)	18.09 ± 2.63 (13 - 24)	0.668
ras_confidence	134	30.18 ± 5.01 (17 - 45)	29.94 ± 4.63 (17 - 40)	30.42 ± 5.39 (18 - 45)	0.583
ras_willingness	134	11.82 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)	11.70 ± 1.98 (5 - 15)	11.94 ± 2.14 (7 - 15)	0.504
ras_goal	134	17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)	17.21 ± 2.88 (11 - 24)	17.57 ± 3.30 (11 - 25)	0.505
ras_reliance	134	13.32 ± 2.92 (5 - 20)	13.13 ± 2.80 (5 - 18)	13.51 ± 3.06 (7 - 20)	0.462
ras_domination	134	9.99 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)	10.21 ± 2.31 (3 - 15)	9.76 ± 2.47 (3 - 15)	0.281
symptom	134	29.81 ± 9.29 (14 - 56)	29.87 ± 9.48 (14 - 55)	29.76 ± 9.18 (15 - 56)	0.948
slof_work	134	22.57 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)	22.84 ± 4.27 (13 - 30)	22.31 ± 5.01 (10 - 30)	0.517
slof_relationship	134	25.39 ± 5.92 (9 - 35)	25.00 ± 5.95 (9 - 35)	25.78 ± 5.90 (11 - 35)	0.450
satisfaction	134	20.90 ± 7.11 (5 - 35)	20.19 ± 6.84 (5 - 33)	21.61 ± 7.35 (5 - 35)	0.250
mhc_emotional	134	11.11 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.81 ± 3.71 (3 - 17)	11.42 ± 3.80 (4 - 18)	0.347
mhc_social	134	15.22 ± 5.51 (5 - 30)	15.01 ± 5.53 (5 - 30)	15.43 ± 5.52 (5 - 29)	0.662
mhc_psychological	134	22.17 ± 6.38 (6 - 36)	21.91 ± 6.11 (7 - 36)	22.43 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)	0.637
resilisnce	134	16.78 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)	17.37 ± 5.05 (7 - 30)	0.141
social_provision	134	13.69 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)	13.25 ± 2.53 (5 - 20)	14.12 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)	0.077
els_value_living	134	17.03 ± 3.14 (5 - 25)	16.58 ± 2.90 (6 - 22)	17.48 ± 3.31 (5 - 25)	0.099
els_life_fulfill	134	12.79 ± 3.46 (4 - 20)	12.30 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)	13.28 ± 3.55 (4 - 20)	0.099
els	134	29.82 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)	28.88 ± 5.51 (11 - 38)	30.76 ± 6.31 (9 - 45)	0.068
social_connect	134	26.25 ± 9.27 (8 - 48)	26.88 ± 9.16 (8 - 48)	25.63 ± 9.40 (8 - 48)	0.436
shs_agency	134	14.43 ± 5.19 (3 - 24)	13.94 ± 4.81 (3 - 21)	14.93 ± 5.54 (3 - 24)	0.274
shs_pathway	134	16.19 ± 4.02 (4 - 24)	15.84 ± 3.86 (5 - 24)	16.55 ± 4.18 (4 - 24)	0.304
shs	134	30.63 ± 8.82 (7 - 48)	29.78 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)	31.48 ± 9.29 (7 - 48)	0.266
esteem	134	12.60 ± 1.65 (9 - 20)	12.66 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)	12.55 ± 1.70 (10 - 20)	0.716
mlq_search	134	14.83 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)	14.66 ± 3.36 (6 - 21)	15.00 ± 3.79 (3 - 21)	0.580
mlq_presence	134	13.55 ± 4.23 (3 - 21)	13.36 ± 3.84 (4 - 21)	13.75 ± 4.60 (3 - 21)	0.597
mlq	134	28.38 ± 6.99 (6 - 42)	28.01 ± 6.32 (10 - 40)	28.75 ± 7.63 (6 - 42)	0.547
empower	134	19.33 ± 4.32 (6 - 30)	18.96 ± 4.20 (11 - 30)	19.70 ± 4.43 (6 - 30)	0.319
ismi_resistance	134	14.58 ± 2.54 (5 - 20)	14.51 ± 2.20 (10 - 20)	14.66 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)	0.736
ismi_discrimation	134	11.51 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)	11.97 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	11.04 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)	0.089
sss_affective	134	9.86 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	10.06 ± 3.55 (3 - 18)	9.66 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	0.512
sss_behavior	134	9.56 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)	9.90 ± 3.94 (3 - 18)	9.22 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	0.301
sss_cognitive	134	8.06 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	8.21 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	7.91 ± 3.51 (3 - 18)	0.636
sss	134	27.48 ± 10.03 (9 - 54)	28.16 ± 10.36 (9 - 54)	26.79 ± 9.71 (9 - 54)	0.430
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.28	0.140	3.01, 3.56
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.134	0.199	-0.524, 0.255	0.500
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.046	0.235	-0.414, 0.507	0.845
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.435	0.335	-0.221, 1.09	0.197
	Pseudo R square	0.018
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.353	17.2, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.209	0.499	-0.768, 1.19	0.676
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.294	0.546	-1.36, 0.776	0.592
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.690	0.778	-0.836, 2.22	0.378
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.9	0.624	28.7, 31.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.478	0.882	-1.25, 2.21	0.589
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.734	0.751	-0.739, 2.21	0.332
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.02	1.072	-1.08, 3.13	0.343
	Pseudo R square	0.019
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.252	11.2, 12.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.239	0.357	-0.460, 0.938	0.504
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.590	0.299	-1.18, -0.004	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.796	0.427	-0.040, 1.63	0.067
	Pseudo R square	0.022
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.387	16.4, 18.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.358	0.548	-0.716, 1.43	0.514
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.389	0.497	-1.36, 0.585	0.436
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.52	0.709	0.134, 2.91	0.035
	Pseudo R square	0.029
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.356	12.4, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.373	0.503	-0.613, 1.36	0.459
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.353	0.406	-0.442, 1.15	0.388
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.00	0.579	-0.133, 2.14	0.088
	Pseudo R square	0.035
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.2	0.287	9.65, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.448	0.406	-1.24, 0.348	0.271
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.260	0.427	-1.10, 0.577	0.544
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.31	0.609	0.120, 2.51	0.035
	Pseudo R square	0.021
symptom	(Intercept)	29.9	1.139	27.6, 32.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.104	1.611	-3.26, 3.05	0.948
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.111	1.086	-2.24, 2.02	0.919
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.40	1.551	-4.44, 1.64	0.369
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.8	0.567	21.7, 23.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.522	0.802	-2.09, 1.05	0.516
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.308	0.650	-1.58, 0.966	0.637
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.382	0.928	-1.44, 2.20	0.682
	Pseudo R square	0.002
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.0	0.719	23.6, 26.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.776	1.017	-1.22, 2.77	0.447
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.17	0.772	-2.68, 0.348	0.137
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.88	1.102	-0.276, 4.05	0.092
	Pseudo R square	0.018
satisfaction	(Intercept)	20.2	0.874	18.5, 21.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.42	1.236	-1.00, 3.84	0.253
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.526	1.071	-1.57, 2.62	0.625
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.478	1.528	-2.52, 3.47	0.755
	Pseudo R square	0.014
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.8	0.455	9.91, 11.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.612	0.644	-0.650, 1.87	0.343
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.358	0.502	-0.625, 1.34	0.478
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.231	0.716	-1.63, 1.17	0.748
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.0	0.693	13.7, 16.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.418	0.979	-1.50, 2.34	0.670
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.638	0.870	-1.07, 2.34	0.467
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.420	1.242	-2.85, 2.01	0.736
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.9	0.805	20.3, 23.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.522	1.138	-1.71, 2.75	0.647
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.659	0.983	-1.27, 2.59	0.505
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.060	1.403	-2.81, 2.69	0.966
	Pseudo R square	0.003
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.559	15.1, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.19	0.791	-0.356, 2.74	0.133
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.165	0.712	-1.23, 1.56	0.817
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.33	1.016	-0.659, 3.32	0.194
	Pseudo R square	0.039
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.349	12.6, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.866	0.493	-0.101, 1.83	0.081
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.575	0.466	-1.49, 0.338	0.221
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.712	0.665	-0.591, 2.01	0.288
	Pseudo R square	0.038
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.386	15.8, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.896	0.546	-0.174, 1.97	0.103
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.267	0.483	-0.679, 1.21	0.582
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.216	0.689	-1.13, 1.57	0.755
	Pseudo R square	0.025
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.3	0.414	11.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.985	0.585	-0.161, 2.13	0.094
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.558	0.411	-0.247, 1.36	0.179
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.239	0.586	-1.39, 0.910	0.686
	Pseudo R square	0.022
els	(Intercept)	28.9	0.727	27.5, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.88	1.029	-0.135, 3.90	0.070
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.791	0.749	-0.676, 2.26	0.295
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.014	1.068	-2.08, 2.11	0.989
	Pseudo R square	0.028
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.9	1.147	24.6, 29.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.25	1.623	-4.43, 1.93	0.441
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.28	1.213	-1.10, 3.66	0.295
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.67	1.731	-7.06, -0.277	0.038
	Pseudo R square	0.023
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.9	0.632	12.7, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.985	0.893	-0.766, 2.74	0.272
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.088	0.683	-1.25, 1.43	0.898
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.748	0.975	-1.16, 2.66	0.446
	Pseudo R square	0.016
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.8	0.487	14.9, 16.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.716	0.688	-0.632, 2.07	0.300
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.172	0.527	-0.861, 1.20	0.745
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.047	0.752	-1.52, 1.43	0.951
	Pseudo R square	0.008
shs	(Intercept)	29.8	1.068	27.7, 31.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.70	1.510	-1.26, 4.66	0.262
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.260	1.108	-1.91, 2.43	0.816
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.688	1.581	-2.41, 3.79	0.665
	Pseudo R square	0.013
esteem	(Intercept)	12.7	0.190	12.3, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.104	0.269	-0.631, 0.422	0.698
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.044	0.306	-0.557, 0.644	0.888
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.142	0.437	-0.715, 0.998	0.747
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.7	0.431	13.8, 15.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.343	0.609	-0.850, 1.54	0.574
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.183	0.600	-0.993, 1.36	0.762
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.238	0.856	-1.91, 1.44	0.782
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.4	0.513	12.4, 14.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.388	0.725	-1.03, 1.81	0.593
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.256	0.634	-0.986, 1.50	0.687
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.002	0.904	-1.77, 1.77	0.998
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq	(Intercept)	28.0	0.853	26.3, 29.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.731	1.207	-1.63, 3.10	0.545
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.442	1.094	-1.70, 2.59	0.688
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.219	1.561	-3.28, 2.84	0.889
	Pseudo R square	0.003
empower	(Intercept)	19.0	0.528	17.9, 20.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.746	0.746	-0.716, 2.21	0.319
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.181	0.550	-0.897, 1.26	0.744
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.470	0.785	-2.01, 1.07	0.551
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.5	0.306	13.9, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.149	0.433	-0.700, 0.998	0.731
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.030	0.451	-0.914, 0.853	0.947
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.491	0.643	-0.768, 1.75	0.447
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.0	0.385	11.2, 12.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.925	0.544	-1.99, 0.141	0.091
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.355	0.459	-1.25, 0.545	0.442
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.328	0.655	-0.956, 1.61	0.619
	Pseudo R square	0.018
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.1	0.426	9.22, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.403	0.603	-1.59, 0.779	0.505
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.152	0.496	-0.820, 1.13	0.760
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.16	0.708	-2.55, 0.227	0.106
	Pseudo R square	0.019
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	9.90	0.451	9.01, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.672	0.637	-1.92, 0.577	0.294
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.012	0.536	-1.06, 1.04	0.982
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.667	0.765	-2.17, 0.832	0.386
	Pseudo R square	0.017
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.21	0.441	7.35, 9.07
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.299	0.623	-1.52, 0.923	0.633
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.716	0.519	-0.302, 1.73	0.172
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.35	0.741	-2.80, 0.107	0.074
	Pseudo R square	0.016
sss	(Intercept)	28.2	1.217	25.8, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.37	1.721	-4.75, 2.00	0.426
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.799	1.318	-1.78, 3.38	0.547
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.04	1.880	-6.73, 0.643	0.111
	Pseudo R square	0.018
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [3.01, 3.56], t(181) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.26], t(181) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51], t(181) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(181) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.19, 18.57], t(181) = 50.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.19], t(181) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.78], t(181) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.22], t(181) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.77])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.94 (95% CI [28.72, 31.16], t(181) = 48.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.21], t(181) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.21], t(181) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.13], t(181) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.61])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.21, 12.20], t(181) = 46.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.94], t(181) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.18, -3.55e-03], t(181) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.57, -1.73e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.63], t(181) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.21 (95% CI [16.45, 17.97], t(181) = 44.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(181) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.58], t(181) = -0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [0.13, 2.91], t(181) = 2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.92])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.13 (95% CI [12.44, 13.83], t(181) = 36.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.36], t(181) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.15], t(181) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.14], t(181) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.72])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.65, 10.77], t(181) = 35.58, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.35], t(181) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.15])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.58], t(181) = -0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [0.12, 2.51], t(181) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.05, 1.08])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [27.63, 32.10], t(181) = 26.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-3.26, 3.05], t(181) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.24, 2.02], t(181) = -0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.44, 1.64], t(181) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.84 (95% CI [21.72, 23.95], t(181) = 40.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.05], t(181) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.97], t(181) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.20], t(181) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.00 (95% CI [23.59, 26.41], t(181) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.77], t(181) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.35], t(181) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.28, 4.05], t(181) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.69])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.19 (95% CI [18.48, 21.91], t(181) = 23.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.84], t(181) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.62], t(181) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-2.52, 3.47], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.49])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.81 (95% CI [9.91, 11.70], t(181) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.87], t(181) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.34], t(181) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.17], t(181) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.01 (95% CI [13.66, 16.37], t(181) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.34], t(181) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.34], t(181) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.85, 2.01], t(181) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.36])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.91 (95% CI [20.33, 23.49], t(181) = 27.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.75], t(181) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.59], t(181) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.69], t(181) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -9.18e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.08, 17.28], t(181) = 28.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.74], t(181) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.56], t(181) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.32], t(181) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.57, 13.94], t(181) = 38.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.83], t(181) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.63])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.34], t(181) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.01], t(181) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.69])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.83, 17.34], t(181) = 42.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.97], t(181) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.21], t(181) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.57], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.30 (95% CI [11.49, 13.11], t(181) = 29.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.13], t(181) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.36], t(181) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.91], t(181) = -0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.88 (95% CI [27.46, 30.31], t(181) = 39.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.90], t(181) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.66])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.26], t(181) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.11], t(181) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.88 (95% CI [24.63, 29.13], t(181) = 23.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.93], t(181) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-1.10, 3.66], t(181) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.67, 95% CI [-7.06, -0.28], t(181) = -2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.03])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.94 (95% CI [12.70, 15.18], t(181) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.77, 2.74], t(181) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.43], t(181) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.66], t(181) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.52])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.84 (95% CI [14.88, 16.79], t(181) = 32.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.07], t(181) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.20], t(181) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.43], t(181) = -0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.36])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.78 (95% CI [27.68, 31.87], t(181) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-1.26, 4.66], t(181) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.43], t(181) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-2.41, 3.79], t(181) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.66 (95% CI [12.28, 13.03], t(181) = 66.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.42], t(181) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.64], t(181) = 0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.00], t(181) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.66])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.66 (95% CI [13.81, 15.50], t(181) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.54], t(181) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.36], t(181) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.44], t(181) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.41])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.36 (95% CI [12.35, 14.36], t(181) = 26.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.81], t(181) = 0.54, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.50], t(181) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.05e-03, 95% CI [-1.77, 1.77], t(181) = 2.26e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = 4.92e-04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.43])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.01 (95% CI [26.34, 29.69], t(181) = 32.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.63, 3.10], t(181) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.59], t(181) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.28, 2.84], t(181) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.41])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.96 (95% CI [17.92, 19.99], t(181) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.21], t(181) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.26], t(181) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.07], t(181) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.51 (95% CI [13.91, 15.11], t(181) = 47.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.00], t(181) = 0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.85], t(181) = -0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.75], t(181) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.70])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.22, 12.72], t(181) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.14], t(181) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.54], t(181) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.61], t(181) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.22, 10.90], t(181) = 23.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.78], t(181) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.13], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.23], t(181) = -1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.06])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.90 (95% CI [9.01, 10.78], t(181) = 21.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.92, 0.58], t(181) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.04], t(181) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.32e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.83], t(181) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.22])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.35, 9.07], t(181) = 18.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.92], t(181) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.73], t(181) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-2.80, 0.11], t(181) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.03])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.16 (95% CI [25.78, 30.55], t(181) = 23.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.75, 2.00], t(181) = -0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.38], t(181) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.04, 95% CI [-6.73, 0.64], t(181) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.06])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	584.573	594.267	-289.287	578.573
recovery_stage_a	random	6	586.404	605.791	-287.202	574.404	4.169	3	0.244
recovery_stage_b	null	3	920.475	930.168	-457.237	914.475
recovery_stage_b	random	6	924.992	944.379	-456.496	912.992	1.482	3	0.686
ras_confidence	null	3	1,116.756	1,126.449	-555.378	1,110.756
ras_confidence	random	6	1,115.929	1,135.316	-551.965	1,103.929	6.826	3	0.078
ras_willingness	null	3	775.482	785.176	-384.741	769.482
ras_willingness	random	6	775.768	795.155	-381.884	763.768	5.714	3	0.126
ras_goal	null	3	945.110	954.804	-469.555	939.110
ras_goal	random	6	943.836	963.223	-465.918	931.836	7.274	3	0.064
ras_reliance	null	3	907.007	916.701	-450.504	901.007
ras_reliance	random	6	900.601	919.987	-444.300	888.601	12.407	3	0.006
ras_domination	null	3	844.873	854.566	-419.436	838.873
ras_domination	random	6	844.778	864.165	-416.389	832.778	6.094	3	0.107
symptom	null	3	1,314.119	1,323.812	-654.059	1,308.119
symptom	random	6	1,318.151	1,337.538	-653.076	1,306.151	1.967	3	0.579
slof_work	null	3	1,070.215	1,079.908	-532.108	1,064.215
slof_work	random	6	1,075.647	1,095.034	-531.824	1,063.647	0.568	3	0.904
slof_relationship	null	3	1,156.678	1,166.371	-575.339	1,150.678
slof_relationship	random	6	1,158.141	1,177.527	-573.070	1,146.141	4.538	3	0.209
satisfaction	null	3	1,240.516	1,250.210	-617.258	1,234.516
satisfaction	random	6	1,243.767	1,263.153	-615.883	1,231.767	2.749	3	0.432
mhc_emotional	null	3	984.871	994.565	-489.436	978.871
mhc_emotional	random	6	989.472	1,008.859	-488.736	977.472	1.399	3	0.706
mhc_social	null	3	1,153.864	1,163.557	-573.932	1,147.864
mhc_social	random	6	1,159.131	1,178.518	-573.566	1,147.131	0.733	3	0.865
mhc_psychological	null	3	1,207.631	1,217.325	-600.816	1,201.631
mhc_psychological	random	6	1,212.586	1,231.973	-600.293	1,200.586	1.045	3	0.790
resilisnce	null	3	1,082.481	1,092.174	-538.240	1,076.481
resilisnce	random	6	1,080.431	1,099.817	-534.215	1,068.431	8.050	3	0.045
social_provision	null	3	908.698	918.391	-451.349	902.698
social_provision	random	6	908.287	927.673	-448.143	896.287	6.411	3	0.093
els_value_living	null	3	938.537	948.231	-466.269	932.537
els_value_living	random	6	940.009	959.396	-464.005	928.009	4.528	3	0.210
els_life_fulfill	null	3	942.479	952.172	-468.239	936.479
els_life_fulfill	random	6	943.343	962.730	-465.672	931.343	5.135	3	0.162
els	null	3	1,157.806	1,167.499	-575.903	1,151.806
els	random	6	1,158.034	1,177.421	-573.017	1,146.034	5.772	3	0.123
social_connect	null	3	1,331.680	1,341.373	-662.840	1,325.680
social_connect	random	6	1,331.188	1,350.574	-659.594	1,319.188	6.492	3	0.090
shs_agency	null	3	1,107.411	1,117.105	-550.706	1,101.411
shs_agency	random	6	1,110.174	1,129.561	-549.087	1,098.174	3.238	3	0.356
shs_pathway	null	3	1,008.016	1,017.710	-501.008	1,002.016
shs_pathway	random	6	1,012.733	1,032.120	-500.367	1,000.733	1.283	3	0.733
shs	null	3	1,298.713	1,308.407	-646.357	1,292.713
shs	random	6	1,302.353	1,321.740	-645.177	1,290.353	2.360	3	0.501
esteem	null	3	691.319	701.012	-342.659	685.319
esteem	random	6	696.849	716.235	-342.424	684.849	0.470	3	0.925
mlq_search	null	3	985.210	994.904	-489.605	979.210
mlq_search	random	6	990.852	1,010.239	-489.426	978.852	0.358	3	0.949
mlq_presence	null	3	1,039.811	1,049.504	-516.905	1,033.811
mlq_presence	random	6	1,045.163	1,064.550	-516.582	1,033.163	0.647	3	0.886
mlq	null	3	1,233.706	1,243.400	-613.853	1,227.706
mlq	random	6	1,239.144	1,258.531	-613.572	1,227.144	0.562	3	0.905
empower	null	3	1,034.335	1,044.029	-514.168	1,028.335
empower	random	6	1,039.148	1,058.535	-513.574	1,027.148	1.187	3	0.756
ismi_resistance	null	3	863.667	873.360	-428.833	857.667
ismi_resistance	random	6	868.203	887.590	-428.101	856.203	1.464	3	0.691
ismi_discrimation	null	3	931.598	941.292	-462.799	925.598
ismi_discrimation	random	6	934.330	953.717	-461.165	922.330	3.268	3	0.352
sss_affective	null	3	969.841	979.535	-481.921	963.841
sss_affective	random	6	970.468	989.854	-479.234	958.468	5.374	3	0.146
sss_behavior	null	3	990.475	1,000.168	-492.237	984.475
sss_behavior	random	6	993.141	1,012.528	-490.571	981.141	3.333	3	0.343
sss_cognitive	null	3	982.280	991.974	-488.140	976.280
sss_cognitive	random	6	983.945	1,003.331	-485.972	971.945	4.336	3	0.227
sss	null	3	1,354.271	1,363.964	-674.135	1,348.271
sss	random	6	1,355.602	1,374.988	-671.801	1,343.602	4.669	3	0.198

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	67	3.28 ± 1.15		67	3.15 ± 1.15		0.500	0.138
recovery_stage_a	2nd	27	3.33 ± 1.13	-0.047	26	3.63 ± 1.13	-0.495	0.335	-0.309
recovery_stage_b	1st	67	17.88 ± 2.89		67	18.09 ± 2.89		0.676	-0.095
recovery_stage_b	2nd	27	17.59 ± 2.76	0.133	26	18.49 ± 2.75	-0.179	0.237	-0.407
ras_confidence	1st	67	29.94 ± 5.10		67	30.42 ± 5.10		0.589	-0.164
ras_confidence	2nd	27	30.67 ± 4.37	-0.253	26	32.18 ± 4.35	-0.605	0.212	-0.517
ras_willingness	1st	67	11.70 ± 2.06		67	11.94 ± 2.06		0.504	-0.207
ras_willingness	2nd	27	11.11 ± 1.76	0.511	26	12.15 ± 1.75	-0.179	0.033	-0.897
ras_goal	1st	67	17.21 ± 3.17		67	17.57 ± 3.17		0.514	-0.185
ras_goal	2nd	27	16.82 ± 2.79	0.201	26	18.70 ± 2.78	-0.586	0.015	-0.971
ras_reliance	1st	67	13.13 ± 2.91		67	13.51 ± 2.91		0.459	-0.239
ras_reliance	2nd	27	13.49 ± 2.44	-0.226	26	14.86 ± 2.42	-0.869	0.041	-0.882
ras_domination	1st	67	10.21 ± 2.35		67	9.76 ± 2.35		0.271	0.262
ras_domination	2nd	27	9.95 ± 2.21	0.152	26	10.81 ± 2.20	-0.616	0.154	-0.506
symptom	1st	67	29.87 ± 9.32		67	29.76 ± 9.32		0.948	0.025
symptom	2nd	27	29.75 ± 7.31	0.027	26	28.25 ± 7.25	0.368	0.452	0.367
slof_work	1st	67	22.84 ± 4.64		67	22.31 ± 4.64		0.516	0.209
slof_work	2nd	27	22.53 ± 3.89	0.123	26	22.39 ± 3.87	-0.030	0.896	0.056
slof_relationship	1st	67	25.00 ± 5.89		67	25.78 ± 5.89		0.447	-0.263
slof_relationship	2nd	27	23.83 ± 4.82	0.395	26	26.50 ± 4.79	-0.244	0.045	-0.902
satisfaction	1st	67	20.19 ± 7.15		67	21.61 ± 7.15		0.253	-0.342
satisfaction	2nd	27	20.72 ± 6.17	-0.127	26	22.62 ± 6.14	-0.242	0.264	-0.457
mhc_emotional	1st	67	10.81 ± 3.73		67	11.42 ± 3.73		0.343	-0.319
mhc_emotional	2nd	27	11.16 ± 3.08	-0.186	26	11.54 ± 3.06	-0.066	0.652	-0.198
mhc_social	1st	67	15.01 ± 5.67		67	15.43 ± 5.67		0.670	-0.124
mhc_social	2nd	27	15.65 ± 4.94	-0.188	26	15.65 ± 4.92	-0.064	0.999	0.001
mhc_psychological	1st	67	21.91 ± 6.59		67	22.43 ± 6.59		0.647	-0.137
mhc_psychological	2nd	27	22.57 ± 5.67	-0.173	26	23.03 ± 5.65	-0.157	0.767	-0.121
resilisnce	1st	67	16.18 ± 4.58		67	17.37 ± 4.58		0.133	-0.431
resilisnce	2nd	27	16.34 ± 4.01	-0.060	26	18.87 ± 4.00	-0.540	0.023	-0.911
social_provision	1st	67	13.25 ± 2.86		67	14.12 ± 2.86		0.081	-0.474
social_provision	2nd	27	12.68 ± 2.55	0.315	26	14.26 ± 2.55	-0.075	0.026	-0.863
els_value_living	1st	67	16.58 ± 3.16		67	17.48 ± 3.16		0.103	-0.477
els_value_living	2nd	27	16.85 ± 2.75	-0.142	26	17.96 ± 2.74	-0.258	0.142	-0.592
els_life_fulfill	1st	67	12.30 ± 3.39		67	13.28 ± 3.39		0.094	-0.632
els_life_fulfill	2nd	27	12.86 ± 2.69	-0.358	26	13.60 ± 2.67	-0.205	0.312	-0.479
els	1st	67	28.88 ± 5.95		67	30.76 ± 5.95		0.070	-0.660
els	2nd	27	29.67 ± 4.79	-0.278	26	31.57 ± 4.76	-0.283	0.151	-0.665
social_connect	1st	67	26.88 ± 9.39		67	25.63 ± 9.39		0.441	0.271
social_connect	2nd	27	28.16 ± 7.64	-0.277	26	23.24 ± 7.59	0.516	0.020	1.064
shs_agency	1st	67	13.94 ± 5.17		67	14.93 ± 5.17		0.272	-0.377
shs_agency	2nd	27	14.03 ± 4.24	-0.034	26	15.76 ± 4.21	-0.320	0.137	-0.664
shs_pathway	1st	67	15.84 ± 3.98		67	16.55 ± 3.98		0.300	-0.356
shs_pathway	2nd	27	16.01 ± 3.27	-0.085	26	16.68 ± 3.25	-0.062	0.455	-0.332
shs	1st	67	29.78 ± 8.74		67	31.48 ± 8.74		0.262	-0.403
shs	2nd	27	30.04 ± 7.06	-0.062	26	32.43 ± 7.01	-0.225	0.218	-0.566
esteem	1st	67	12.66 ± 1.55		67	12.55 ± 1.55		0.698	0.083
esteem	2nd	27	12.70 ± 1.51	-0.035	26	12.74 ± 1.51	-0.148	0.929	-0.030
mlq_search	1st	67	14.66 ± 3.52		67	15.00 ± 3.52		0.574	-0.145
mlq_search	2nd	27	14.84 ± 3.21	-0.077	26	14.95 ± 3.20	0.023	0.905	-0.045
mlq_presence	1st	67	13.36 ± 4.20		67	13.75 ± 4.20		0.593	-0.158
mlq_presence	2nd	27	13.61 ± 3.63	-0.104	26	14.00 ± 3.62	-0.105	0.696	-0.159
mlq	1st	67	28.01 ± 6.99		67	28.75 ± 6.99		0.545	-0.171
mlq	2nd	27	28.46 ± 6.14	-0.104	26	28.97 ± 6.12	-0.052	0.761	-0.120
empower	1st	67	18.96 ± 4.32		67	19.70 ± 4.32		0.319	-0.356
empower	2nd	27	19.14 ± 3.49	-0.086	26	19.41 ± 3.47	0.138	0.773	-0.132
ismi_resistance	1st	67	14.51 ± 2.51		67	14.66 ± 2.51		0.731	-0.083
ismi_resistance	2nd	27	14.48 ± 2.34	0.017	26	15.12 ± 2.34	-0.256	0.320	-0.356
ismi_discrimation	1st	67	11.97 ± 3.15		67	11.04 ± 3.15		0.091	0.522
ismi_discrimation	2nd	27	11.62 ± 2.68	0.200	26	11.02 ± 2.67	0.015	0.418	0.337
sss_affective	1st	67	10.06 ± 3.49		67	9.66 ± 3.49		0.505	0.211
sss_affective	2nd	27	10.21 ± 2.95	-0.080	26	8.65 ± 2.93	0.528	0.054	0.818
sss_behavior	1st	67	9.90 ± 3.69		67	9.22 ± 3.69		0.294	0.325
sss_behavior	2nd	27	9.88 ± 3.14	0.006	26	8.54 ± 3.13	0.328	0.122	0.647
sss_cognitive	1st	67	8.21 ± 3.61		67	7.91 ± 3.61		0.633	0.149
sss_cognitive	2nd	27	8.93 ± 3.06	-0.358	26	7.28 ± 3.05	0.314	0.052	0.821
sss	1st	67	28.16 ± 9.96		67	26.79 ± 9.96		0.426	0.273
sss	2nd	27	28.96 ± 8.17	-0.159	26	24.55 ± 8.12	0.445	0.050	0.877

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(175.44) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.26)

2st

t(173.98) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(168.05) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.19)

2st

t(167.91) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.39)

ras_confidence

1st

t(151.00) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.22)

2st

t(168.90) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.86 to 3.87)

ras_willingness

1st

t(150.26) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.94)

2st

t(169.62) = 2.15, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(154.21) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.44)

2st

t(166.57) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.39)

ras_reliance

1st

t(148.62) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.37)

2st

t(171.44) = 2.06, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.69)

ras_domination

1st

t(164.61) = -1.10, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.35)

2st

t(166.18) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.06)

symptom

1st

t(142.87) = -0.06, p = 0.948, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.29 to 3.08)

2st

t(179.74) = -0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-5.46 to 2.44)

slof_work

1st

t(148.82) = -0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.06)

2st

t(171.21) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 1.97)

slof_relationship

1st

t(146.35) = 0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.79)

2st

t(174.48) = 2.02, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.26)

satisfaction

1st

t(151.80) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.86)

2st

t(168.21) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.44 to 5.23)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(147.28) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.88)

2st

t(173.17) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.05)

mhc_social

1st

t(153.11) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.35)

2st

t(167.23) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.68 to 2.67)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(151.66) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.77)

2st

t(168.32) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.61 to 3.53)

resilisnce

1st

t(153.81) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.76)

2st

t(166.79) = 2.30, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.35 to 4.70)

social_provision

1st

t(156.63) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.84)

2st

t(165.58) = 2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.96)

els_value_living

1st

t(152.87) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.97)

2st

t(167.39) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.60)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(143.94) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.14)

2st

t(178.13) = 1.01, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.20)

els

1st

t(144.98) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.15 to 3.91)

2st

t(176.52) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.70 to 4.49)

social_connect

1st

t(145.84) = -0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.46 to 1.95)

2st

t(175.23) = -2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.06, 95% CI (-9.05 to -0.80)

shs_agency

1st

t(146.59) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.75)

2st

t(174.14) = 1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.56 to 4.02)

shs_pathway

1st

t(146.65) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.08)

2st

t(174.05) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.44)

shs

1st

t(145.23) = 1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.69)

2st

t(176.15) = 1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.42 to 6.20)

esteem

1st

t(171.92) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.43)

2st

t(170.72) = 0.09, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st

t(159.47) = 0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.55)

2st

t(165.17) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.85)

mlq_presence

1st

t(152.26) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.82)

2st

t(167.84) = 0.39, p = 0.696, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.36)

mlq

1st

t(154.19) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.65 to 3.12)

2st

t(166.58) = 0.30, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.81 to 3.84)

empower

1st

t(145.37) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.22)

2st

t(175.93) = 0.29, p = 0.773, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.16)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(163.63) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.00)

2st

t(165.83) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.91)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(150.54) = -1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.15)

2st

t(169.34) = -0.81, p = 0.418, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.86)

sss_affective

1st

t(149.44) = -0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.79)

2st

t(170.49) = -1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.03)

sss_behavior

1st

t(150.40) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.59)

2st

t(169.47) = -1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.36)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(150.00) = -0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.93)

2st

t(169.89) = -1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.30 to 0.01)

sss

1st

t(146.64) = -0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.77 to 2.03)

2st

t(174.06) = -1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.83 to 0.00)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(90.91) = 2.00, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.00 to 0.96)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(80.41) = 0.71, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.51)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(64.11) = 2.29, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.29)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(63.52) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(66.71) = 2.23, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.15)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(62.26) = 3.27, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.53 to 2.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(76.51) = 2.41, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.93)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(58.08) = -1.36, p = 0.355, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.74 to 0.71)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(62.41) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.40)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.57) = 0.91, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.74) = 0.92, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.19)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(61.25) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.15)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(65.80) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.00)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.63) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.61)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(66.38) = 2.06, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.95)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(68.79) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.61) = 0.98, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.47)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.83) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.16)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.58) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.34)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(60.19) = -1.93, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.87 to 0.09)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.74) = 1.20, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.79) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.75) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.32 to 3.21)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(85.44) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.81)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(71.37) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(65.11) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.55)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(66.70) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.46)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(59.86) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(75.48) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.38)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.74) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.91)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(62.88) = -1.99, p = 0.103, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.01)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(63.63) = -1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(63.32) = -1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.43)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.78) = -1.67, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.94 to 0.45)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(89.58) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(79.48) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.80)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(63.73) = 0.97, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.24)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(63.17) = -1.96, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(66.26) = -0.78, p = 0.877, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.61)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(61.95) = 0.87, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.17)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(75.72) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.60)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(57.89) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.29 to 2.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(62.09) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.00)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.31) = -1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.39)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.34) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.68)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(60.97) = 0.71, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(65.38) = 0.73, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.39)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.24) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.63)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(65.94) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.59)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(68.26) = -1.23, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.19) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.62) = 1.35, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.34) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.29)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.94) = 1.05, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.47) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.46)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.52) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.23)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.52) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.48)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(84.32) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.66)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(70.76) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.39)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(64.71) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.53)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(66.24) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.64)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(59.62) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.28)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(74.72) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.38) = -0.77, p = 0.889, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(62.55) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(63.28) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.06)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(62.97) = 1.37, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.51) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 3.44)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance